9/11: You’d have to be crazy to believe it!

Most people think folks who don’t believe the government and media’s version of the truth about the 9/11 attacks must be crazy, even though politicians, intelligence agents and military officials have been blowing the whistle on a conspiracy for years. The fact is that most people won’t sit up and pay attention to an issue unless the mainstream media or head of government reports it, even though mainstream media and heads of government have lied to us over and over again throughout history. But maybe most people are the crazy ones. After all, to believe the official story of the 9/11 attacks, you’d have to believe and accept the following crazy notions:

You’d have to imagine the evidence.

Though the media and the White House immediately pointed the finger at Osama bin Laden, in April 2002, after raiding caves all over Afghanistan, FBI Director Robert Mueller stated; “In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot,” and in 2006, when asked why the 9/11 attacks do not appear on bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster, the FBI admitted it has no hard evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks. In fact, the only information linking him to the attacks came from ‘enhanced interrogation’ of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others held at Guantanamo Bay. The 9/11 Commissioners themselves said they had little confidence in Sheik Mohammed’s evidence, which was relayed to them third-hand by the superiors of those who carried out the interrogations, and which involved waterboarding, sleep deprivation and threats. The detainees tortured say they gave false information and signed confessions they were not allowed to read to stop the torture – in fact one even confessed to crimes which it is known he did not commit. There is absolutely no reliable evidence that Bin Laden, Sheik Mohammed or any other Al Qaeda operatives were responsible for the attack – only the government/media’s word. Read more here.

You’d have to believe that fanatical Muslims who hate US freedom and excess like to indulge in pornography, prostitutes, illegal drugs and hard liquor.

FBI and media investigations found that according to their credit card statements and eyewitness reports, the hijackers indulged in all of these in the weeks leading up to the attacks. Were these fanatical Muslims, or not? Read more here.

You’d have to believe that the US, having effectively prevented around 40 Al Qaeda attacks in the nineties, genuinely thought there was no threat this time even after receiving more than a hundred warnings about it, some of them detailed.

US intelligence and the White House were told what was coming by several other countries, by the Taliban and by their own officers – including one agent who tried to warn his superiors seventy times but was ignored at every level. This is not merely incompetence or a simple mistake. Some of the warnings were explicit; mentioning hijacking planes and flying them into major buildings, specifically mentioning New York, and warning that the potential hijackers were already inside the US. Even ABC News received information about the forthcoming attack, but did not report it due to pressure from a US intelligence agency, and in a Middle-Eastern media interview in June, senior Al Qaeda officials promised that “[the] coming weeks will hold important surprises that will target American and Israeli interests in the world” and said “It’s time to penetrate America and Israel and hit them where it hurts most”. As early as 2000, a secret military intelligence unit called Able Danger had identified four of the 9/11 hijackers as threats, including ringleader Mohamed Atta and pilot Marwan Alshehhi, but further investigations were blocked by military lawyers and Generals, the unit was closed down, and most of its data was inexplicably confiscated or destroyed. America undoubtedly knew about the attacks in advance, but covered up this knowledge. Read more here.

You’d have to believe that, despite an excellent record and repeated, detailed warnings of an imminent major terrorist attack involving hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings, US defences failed to stop four planes in one day on 9/11 thanks to pure bad luck and coincidence.

NORAD had intercepted 67 errant or suspicious aircraft already in 2001 and 129 the previous year, most of them within mere minutes. US defenses had run numerous drills over the previous three years involving several simultaneously hijacked aircraft, terrorist attacks from the air, and planes used as missiles to hit buildings, including those buildings hit on 9/11 – and remember, the US had plenty of warning that this kind of strike was about to happen. Yet the one day it really mattered, not just one failure let US defenses down, but failure at every level. All four pilots of the planes failed to key the standard distress code. The FAA, we are led to believe, failed to alert the military in good time – though they dispute this outright. The military apparently failed to find and track the hijacked planes, although they track all air traffic routinely, monitoring for threats. NORAD failed to scramble jets in a timely manner to intercept the planes. And once scrambled, fighter pilots failed to reach their targets despite having more than enough time to do so in their 1500mph planes. It is incredible that America failed to defend itself on every count even after all the advance warnings it received. That’s not an accident – that’s a stand-down. Read more here.

You’d have to believe it simply never occurred to the hijackers that if they spent too long in the air they might get stopped.

While one might assume these apparently highly trained and highly competent terrorists would plan their mission with as few risks as possible, the routes their planes took tell another story. Rather than choosing flights which would minimise the time spent getting to their targets, they took huge detours and flew for 21, 26 and an incredible 45 minutes after hijacking (and flight 93 flew for 35 minutes before crashing in countryside still 150 miles from any likely target). These long detours exposed the attacks to certain failure, if only US defences had worked as they usually did.

The reasons for these detours remain unclear, but what is absolutely clear is that the hijackers were either totally confident there was no danger they would be stopped, or they were totally stupid, in no hurry whatsoever to complete their mission, and extraordinarily lucky. Read more here and here.

You’d have to believe that explosives are not needed to bring down a tall building neatly and completely in a controlled demolition; random, sporadic and minor fires in a tiny portion of the building can destroy all its vertical uprights at once and so cause it to collapse spontaneously, rapidly, symmetrically and completely, with no unburned parts remaining structurally intact, within as little as 56 minutes.

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), who carried out the official investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center, agreed that the impacts of the planes did not significantly contribute to the collapses of the buildings, which were built to withstand several Boeing impacts without failing. Architects’ calculations had showed “all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind” and that “Live loads on [the] columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs”. NIST also concluded that the jet fuel would have burned off within a few minutes at most and did not contribute either.

Nevertheless, the fires in the twin towers, which were very smoky with dull flames, indicating inefficient burning and low temperatures; which were largely localised and never involved entire floors; and which died down over time (and appeared to have burned out in WTC 2 before its collapse) brought down the buildings in just 56 and 102 minutes, while WTC 7, which had not been hit by a plane, suddenly collapsed in the precise manner of a controlled demolition – much of it at free-fall speed, as if all resistance vanished spontaneously from below – after smouldering gently all day. See how WTC 7 fell in the very short video below.

Physics sure ain’t what it used to be. In 1975 one of the twin towers suffered a serious three-hour fire that “burned like a blowtorch”, gutted 65% of floor 11 and spread to six other floors, without causing any structural damage. Fires alone cannot have brought all three towers to the ground – especially not such small fires which burned for such a short time. Read more here – and more about WTC 7 here.

You’d have to think it’s scientific to throw out any physical test results that disprove your theory and manipulate computer models to prove it instead.

NIST exposed uninsulated structural steel beams of the same type used in the WTC to temperatures of up to 2000C for two hours. They observed minimal sagging and no structural failure, thereby disproving that the fires in the twin towers could have caused structural failure leading to the collapse of the towers. So they abandoned scientific physical tests, and turned to computer modelling and calculations instead. Their computer models have never been released for public or independent scrutiny. Kevin Ryan, an employee of Underwriter’s Labs who was carrying out work as part of the investigation, spoke out when he found they were manipulating the models, but only lost his job. Watch this short video and read more here.

You’d have to think that once structural failure occurs in a building, its total collapse to the ground is an inevitable consequence.

The official building performance report by NIST is based on this assumption and covers only how stucturally failure initially occurred; they admitted the report “includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable“ and claimed that “The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued”. Their report provides no calculations, models, evidence or analysis of the energies upon which its claim relies. Meanwhile numerous failed controlled demolitions prove that once collapse is initiated, ‘global collapse’ is far from inevitable. No other building has ever collapsed in this manner due to fire. The ‘pancake theory’ is little but a popular myth, rejected by NIST in their report in favour of ‘progressive collapse’ – which they do not analyse or explain any further. Read more here, and watch buildings suffer severe structural failure and NOT collapse to the ground here, here, here and here. That last one is a building at the University of Technology in Delft, the Netherlands – one of the very few steel framed buildings to suffer any kind of collapse due to fire. You’ll see that, though the whole building is gutted after hours of fire, only a small portion of the building collapsed and it certainly didn’t take the rest of the structure down with it.

NIST’s report also assumes that the massive displacement of fireproofing material by the plane impacts was responsible for the towers’ weakening to fire – but provides no evidence or calculations to prove this assumption. In short, the only official report on the collapse of the buildings is totally unscientific. Read more here.

You’d have to believe the hundreds of people, including firemen, who saw and heard various different explosions on the day were just plain wrong.

Eyewitnesses, survivors and first responders reported explosions in the lower parts and basements of the towers, explosions before the planes hit the towers, smoke filling the subway station below the WTC complex, fireballs at ground level just before the towers collapsed, explosions which shook nearby buildings like earthquakes, strange loud noises in closed-off parts of the towers, explosions inside the US Customs House in WTC 6, a massive explosion that ripped apart floors 22-25 of the north tower, seventy storeys below the plane impact, and explosions in WTC7 before either tower fell. The official explanation for all explosions at ground level and on other floors of the towers is that the jet fuel fireball travelled down the lift shafts. However, this does not explain explosions of the magnitude described, nor the many different locations affected, nor explosions before the planes hit, nor explosions several minutes after the initial fireballs, nor explosions just before the towers collapsed, and certainly not explosions that rocked the subway or other buildings. These explosions are unexplained and ignored by the official story. Read more here and watch this video.

You’d have to believe that ordinary office fires of less than 600C can cause pools of molten metal more than 1500C and underground fires that can’t be extinguished for three months.

A hydrocarbon fire, burning ordinary materials and jet fuel, reaches a maximum temperature, in ideal conditions, of about 800C. The thick black smoke and dull orange flames seen in the World Trade Center fires suggest the fire was not burning at maximum efficiency in ideal conditions – far from it – and NIST said that they couldn’t find any steel beams from the wreckage that had reached even 600C. Yet after the towers collapsed, clean-up operators and first responders reported molten steel flowing like lava under the cores of the buildings for weeks afterwards, and intense hotspots that persisted for months despite constant application of water – the fires were not put out until December 19th. NIST denied the presence of liquid metal flowing under the buildings, but the eyewitnesses are many. Strangely, these hotspots occurred only under WTCs 1, 2 and 7, and not under WTC 5 or 6, both of which burned much more fiercely in blazes which consumed the whole buildings but left them standing. Steel does not melt until it reaches around 1600C – an impossible consequence of office or even jet fuel fires. Read more here.

You’d have to accept that passports and credit cards can survive conditions which destroy black boxes built to withstand plane crashes and intense fires.

Other than those lost at sea or on unreachable mountaintops, only five black boxes have ever not been recovered. Four of them were at the twin towers. Black boxes are able to withstand an impact of 3400 Gs (3400 times the force of gravity), and survive flames of 1093C (2000F) or submersion in 20,000 feet of saltwater, and they are located in the tail section of the aircraft, which usually sustains the least impact in a crash. Yet the FBI and the 9/11 Commission report that none of the black boxes from the planes which hit the twin towers were found. This contradicts the claims of two clean-up workers who say they helped the FBI find them, and an anonymous National Transportation Safety Board source who says the NTSB worked on the boxes. It must also make one wonder how documents identifying several of the hijackers and supposed passengers on the planes were found intact and unharmed. One victim’s ATM card was found at ground zero and returned to his parents virtually unharmed, despite the fact that it was in the pocket of a man on the plane that burned so hot it destroyed black boxes and brought a skyscraper down. In another miracle, the passport of one of the hijackers was apparently thrown out of his pocket or hand luggage, out of the plane and the fireball, out of the tower, and was found almost spotless in the street nearby while the towers blazed above. These circumstances are simply miraculous!

You’d have to believe that three huge passenger airliners were able, without fail, to reach speeds and g-forces well outside their safe operating limits, despite no other airliner ever successfully exceeding these limits.

The maximum safe speeds, at below 18,000ft, of a Boeing 757 and a Boeing 767 are 350 knots and 360 knots respectively, with certain structural failure expected at 410 and 420 knots. There are a few historical examples of planes exceeding these limits, and all experienced crippling structural failure. Yet the recorded speeds (according to radar data and NTSB analysis) of the three planes as they hit their targets on 9/11 were 430, 460 and an incredible 510 knots – but all three planes hit their targets with perfect accuracy, and with no signs whatsoever of the structural failure which should have ended their missions prematurely or made it impossible for them to hit their targets. The plane that hit the Pentagon is calculated, based on its flight path, to have incurred an absolute minimum g-force of 9G in its final manoeuvre, despite being rated for a maximum of just 2.5G. That one airliner could survive these speeds and forces is extremely unlikely. That three could do it at once is impossible. Read more here.

You’d have to believe that novice pilots who could barely control small single engine planes were able, without fail, to perform low-altitude, high-speed manouevres in airliners that expert pilots with thousands of hours experience could not replicate.

The hijack pilots were all novices; none had any experience flying Boeing airliners (thought it is believed some of them had used Boeing flight simulators for training) and two of the four were refused rental of even light single-engine Cessnas a few weeks before the attacks, because they could not control them sufficiently. Flight instructors described two of the hijackers as “average pilots”, albeit with attitude problems, poor behaviour and little understanding of certain aspects of flying, but the others they describe variously as dumb, clueless, unable to follow instructions, and a waste of resources. One flight school manager “couldn’t believe [Hani Hanjour] had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had” and reported him to the FAA five times fearing his license was not legitimate. No action was taken. Another flight school employee said of Hanjour, “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

In professional high-tech simulations, experienced Boeing and military pilots with thousands of hours of experience could not hit the twin towers (with a Boeing airliner) without slowing to landing speed, and had similar difficulty replicating the high speed corkscrew dive into the Pentagon. There is simply no way that novice pilots could have pulled off the attacks in the way they are reported to have happened. Read more here.

You’d have to find it completely acceptable to ignore basic investigation standards when investigating the greatest crime scene of the modern world.

One of the most basic standards in any investigation is to carefully examine all physical evidence and to keep it until the investigation is complete – in fact it is illegal to hide, alter or destroy any evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. But after the three World Trade Center towers collapsed, the steel remains were taken to high-security scrap yards as quickly as possible and sold off immediately for recycling in Asia, despite protests from victims’ families, the media, and even investigators, who were not permitted access to Ground Zero nor the scrap yards. NIST investigators were given 236 pieces of steel, out of thousands, but quickly determined that most of them were of little use as the codes indicating their location in the building were missing or illegible. Read more here.

A plane crash investigation usually involves reconstructing and analysing the wreckage, cataloguing all parts by their unique serial numbers. But wreckage from the planes involved in 9/11 was handed directly over to the FBI, who did not analyse it at all: a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 2008 revealed that the FBI had not generated any records pertaining to the aircraft, and no-one had ever positively identified any of the wreckage. Read more here.

Explosives testing is standard procedure under NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) guidelines for any fire where melted steel or pulverised concrete is found, or where terrorism may be involved. But instead of running tests, and despite literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts and independent scientists’ accounts to the contrary, NIST ruled out the possibility of a ‘blast event’ (specifically in the collapse of building 7) solely based on their own claim that no loud explosions were heard. Read more here and please watch the video below. If we had truly been attacked by foreign terrorists, there would be every reason to test for explosives, and indeed to investigate all aspects of the attacks as thoroughly as possible.

You’d have to think it’s perfectly normal for government agencies to destroy trading records and warn workers not to pursue investigations into insider trading.

In the days before 9/11, there was a huge surge in certain trading transactions that paid out well after the attacks – largely ‘put’ options which bet on stocks falling suddenly – in this case the stocks of the affected airlines, several reinsurance companies who paid out billions to cover losses after the attacks, and some financial services companies who were hurt too. These transactions should have been easy to trace through financial records, but the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and the CBOE (Chicago Board Options Exchange) destroyed the records of the transactions, while the 9/11 Commission report claimed it had all been a massive coincidence. Read more here and here.

You’d have to believe that a huge airliner with 6-ton engines mounted beneath it can plough into a concrete building at ground level at 530mph and not even scratch the foundation inside or the lawn outside.

The building performance report on the Pentagon said “The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the first floor slab on grade and the second floor”, which undoubtedly, considering the size and shape of the aircraft, means that the huge engines mounted beneath the plane’s body would have had to drag across the floor slab with great force. But the total lack of damage to either the floor slab of the building or the lawn outside – and the lack of visible debris – seriously challenge the idea that a 70-ton plane crashed here at all. See more here and here.

You’d have to believe that a crashing plane can plunge deep into soft earth like a knife, and yet matter from inside the cockpit – and a 1000lb engine – can be spread for miles around.

Officials assert that the lack of plane parts or fire visible at the Shanksville crash site is due to the fact the plane plunged directly into the soft, loose earth of an old strip mine – in fact, the black boxes located in the plane’s tail were apparently found 15ft and 25ft underground. But the discovery of heavy debris up to a mile away, and light debris up to eight miles away, strongly suggests that early reports that the plane was shot down were in fact true. It’s not impossible for a heavy plane engine to bounce a long distance if it impacted hard ground – but if the official claims are true there was nothing for it to bounce off. It’s not impossible for a speeding plane to plough straight down into soft matter – but the bodies and luggage inside it would certainly remain inside it, and not be fragmented and scattered for a mile around as they were. Read more here.

You’d have to come up with a genuine, innocent excuse for the US government to censor information about Saudi involvement in the plot.

Fifteen out of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis, and when the Congressional investigation into the attacks released their report, the White House redacted a whole 28 pages which, according to Congressman Bob Graham (co-chair of the inquiry), detail financial and other support for the attacks by US ally Saudi Arabia. Can there be any good reason for failing to inform the American people and the world of this information? If Saudi Arabia was so key, why is the blame focused on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Iran, and why has Saudi Arabia remained such a powerful economic ally of the US? Read more here.

You’d have to assume that the 9/11 Commissioners who investigated the attacks – all experienced and respected politicians – and other members of Congress who found that the White House was covering up information are just paranoid crackpot conspiracy theorists with no grasp on reality.

Bob Kerrey, 9/11 Commissioner, ex-SEAL and Vietnam war veteran, Governor of Nebraska 1983-87 and Senator for Nebraska 1989-2001, called the 9/11 attacks “a thirty-year conspiracy” and said of the 9/11 Commission Report “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version.”

Max Cleland, 9/11 Commissioner, Vietnam war veteran, Secretary of State of Georgia 1983-1997 and Senator for Georgia 1997-2003, said “the White House has played cover-up”, “It is a national scandal”, “This investigation is now compromised” and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

Lee Hamilton, co-chair of 9/11 Commission, former member of the US House of Representatives, who served on several government committees including the House Intelligence Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that “the [9/11] Commission was set up to fail”.

John Farmer, senior counsel to 9/11 Commission, a lawyer, politician and jurist, New Jersey’s Attorney General 1999-2002: “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”; “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described…. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true”; “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”.

Bob Graham, Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, pointed out that a 28-page chapter on links between the 9/11 plot and US allies Saudi Arabia had been withheld from the public, and that the FBI had withheld further information too, and called for a new investigation.

Ron Paul, current Republican Congressman and U.S. Representative for Texas’s 14th congressional district since 1997, three-time candidate for President of the United States who previously served in the Air Force and Texas Air National Guard: “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”.

Steve Pieczenik, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for four administrations and long-time consultant to the Department of Defence, says that a top general told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag ‘inside job’.

Raymond McGovern, 29 year CIA veteran who chaired National Intelligence Estimates under George H W Bush and Ronald Reagan: “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”.

Ted Gunderson, FBI assistant Special Agent-in-Charge and former chief of Memphis, Dallas, and Los Angeles FBI branches, insisted there was no way US intelligence can have been in the dark about what was about to happen, confirmed US involvement in various other ‘terrorist’ attacks for political gain, and firmly believed 9/11 was another such operation.

Numerous other congressmen, intelligence officers and military officials suspect – or report – a conspiracy and support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. Read more here, here, here and meet the 9/11 whistleblowers here, including the customs official who denied the hijackers passage into America but was overruled by the CIA, the intelligence officer who was asked to design the perfect terrorist attack as part of a security study 1976 and devised an attack “so similar to what happened Sept 11th that if it were song lyrics there would be copyright infringement”, the FBI translators who say the FBI knew all about the atttacks in advance, the FEMA photographer who saw too much, and the Soviet intelligence officer who claims to know exactly how the towers were brought down and by whom.

But all those whistleblowers are just crazy, right?

We know better, right?

Don’t be stupid!

It is abundantly clear from the evidence freely available that authorities inside the US at the very least allowed 9/11 to happen with no regard for the victims, and very probably were complicit or even instrumental in its orchestration – and the above are just a few of the gaping holes in the official story of the attacks.

It’s all too easy to remain consumed by our busy lives and day-to-day worries, and leave the world faithfully in the hands of our politicians and governors, and soak up whatever stories the media tells us, but history shows that false-flag terror and conspiracy are common tools of our governments. It’s time we faced up to it.

Share this:

Like this:

"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
-- Woodrow Wilson, 1913

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-- Dwight D Eisenhower, 1961

"We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters... The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists In US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation... We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign... pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated)."
-- Operation Northwoods, signed by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1962

"He's the one who told me, eleven months before 9/11 ever happened, that there was going to be an event... and out of that event we were going to invade Afghanistan, to run pipelines from the Caspian Sea, we were gonna invade Iraq, you know, to take over the oil fields and establish a base in the middle east... And sure enough, later 9/11 happened, and I remember he was telling me how we were going to see soldiers looking in caves for people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and all these places, and there's gonna be this "war on terror", in which there's no real enemy, and the whole thing is a giant hoax, you know, but it's a way for the government to take over the American people."
-- Aaron Russo, film producer and political activist, speaking about Nick Rockefeller, 2007

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, second in command of the Third Reich, at the Nuremberg trials, 1946

“I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labelled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary.”
-- Karen Kwiatkowski, Air Force Colonel, Pentagon official, 2006

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit attrocities"
-- Voltaire

"To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth."
-- Voltaire